Is Racial Nationalism Acceptable?

Egalitarian wrote:My primarily concerns are race-mixing and the growing communities of millions of foreigners in native land. I think both need to stopped.

"Race mixing" is an issue which racial nationalists grossly exaggerate. Despite miscegenation no longer possessing the social stigma it once did, the actual frequency of interracial relationships is far less than one would expect given demographic trends in the West. This appears to be a vindication of the view that people typically prefer the company of those ethnically and culturally similar to themselves. (I reject the theory, popular among certain intellectuals, that the low rate of interracial relationships is attributable to malicious views Caucasians retain from the legacy of slavery and segregation.) With respect to mass immigration, you're correct in stating that it will cease as soon as the dictatorship of capital has been abolished.

Rev Scare wrote:Do you not believe that individual character is more important than race in determining the quality of a person?

I affirm that personality succeeds race as the basis of judging a person, as essentially every civilized individual does (except most people who hold this position aspire to the development of cosmopolitanism). While I acknowledge this, I believe it does not justify the inevitable doom of races caused by multiculturalism and international capitalism.

Furthermore, are not ethnocultural distinctions (which are not strictly tangent to race) more significant?

Ethnocultural distinctions are significant, but racial distinctions are without a doubt more substantial and do hold the upper hand in my book. Cosmopolitanism will eliminate all distinctions.

Egalitarian wrote:Ethnocultural distinctions are significant, but racial distinctions are without a doubt more substantial and do hold the upper hand in my book. Cosmopolitanism will eliminate all distinctions.

I can't understand how they could ever be considered more significant than ethnocultural aspects. there is not a significant nation united on aspects of race(even if they claim to be)
does being white make one a german if he was born and raised in france? he shares no language culture of ancestral ties with the people of germany, the german people would in no way,shape or fom accept this individual as german

the majority of nations in the world are made up of people of mixed racial traits, and this has not led to a significant loss of national identity, i see no reason to believe race plays anything more than a small role in the determining of national character.

Egalitarian wrote:While I acknowledge this, I believe it does not justify the inevitable doom of races caused by multiculturalism and international capitalism.

But there is nothing "inevitable" about it. The only time capitalism deliberately exterminates populations is when doing so assists the bourgeoisie in the further accumulation of capital, e.g., wars to secure resources abroad and accumulation by dispossession. The homogenization of culture is a far more pervasive issue, and it's attributable to globalization. Multiculturalism doesn't "doom" races; at the most, it may contribute to instances of social fragmentation.

Ethnocultural distinctions are significant, but racial distinctions are without a doubt more substantial and do hold the upper hand in my book. Cosmopolitanism will eliminate all distinctions.

Race only started to become a socially meaningful category in the 16th century, when Europeans were searching for ways to legitimize the burgeoning slave trade. Prior to this, people identified far more with their local communities. However, the frequent use of racial categories didn't really begin until the 18th century. The United States was the first country to employ this practice on an appreciable scale, as it had an incentive in forging a collective national identity among its diverse population of Germans, Anglos, Irish, Scots, Italians, and Poles—each of which were considered a race unto themselves earlier in history. The most expedient method was obviously to emphasize their racial commonality, and proceed to vilify those individuals who sought to retain aspects their ethnocultural identity. This method ultimately proved successful, but it was an arduous process nonetheless. The point is that racial identity was contrived, thereby indicating its hollowness as a marker for group identification. To understand the profound extent by which culture is relevant to our identity, just imagine how much more you have in common with a non-Caucasian compatriot who practices the same culture that you do, compared with a randomly selected Caucasian from a foreign country.

Cosmopolitanism is an impotent ideology precisely because national identity is an enduring sentiment. The most pernicious effect this puerile form of internationalism has is its tendency to undermine radical organizing. The reality is that cosmopolitan social engineers shall forever remain disappointed by the fact that their vision of a vapid global monoculture will never materialize. In the interim, they will succeed only in offending the masses by violating their right to free association and prohibiting them from practicing the culture they identify with.

Egalitarian, just to clear this up for me a bit, are you referring to race in the more general sense of black, white, hispanic etc.? Or do you mean individual "races" within the confines of a given country? Would you say that a German is of the same race as a French person? What about an English person and a Pole?

As long as them beautiful Slavic genes don't get watered down too much, I'm happy. I like me some Eastern European girls.

4thsupporter wrote:I can't understand how they could ever be considered more significant than ethnocultural aspects. there is not a significant nation united on aspects of race(even if they claim to be)
does being white make one a german if he was born and raised in france? he shares no language culture of ancestral ties with the people of germany, the german people would in no way,shape or fom accept this individual as german

Culture can be temporary; blood is always forever. In this case, a European living in France could conform to German culture as both are European. I'm not saying a non-European couldn't perform the same, I just don't think it is necessary or desirable.

4thsupporter wrote:the majority of nations in the world are made up of people of mixed racial traits, and this has not led to a significant loss of national identity, i see no reason to believe race plays anything more than a small role in the determining of national character.

Which nations may these be? The most multicultural nation I can think of is the USA, and it's going to hell.

Celtiberian wrote:But there is nothing "inevitable" about it. The only time capitalism deliberately exterminates populations is when doing so assists the bourgeoisie in the further accumulation of capital, e.g., wars to secure resources abroad and accumulation by dispossession. The homogenization of culture is a far more pervasive issue, and it's attributable to globalization. Multiculturalism doesn't "doom" races; at the most, it may contribute to instances of social fragmentation.

Capitalism and multiculturalism will be the end of all remnants of homogeneous societies given the social trends nowadays. White populations globally are declining and their counterpart is prospering. The bourgeoisie don't deliberately have to genocide people to exterminate them; they will just blend them out of existence. Cities such as the one where I live in are becoming majority non-White as the wealth disparities increase.

Celtiberian wrote:Race only started to become a socially meaningful category in the 16th century, when Europeans were searching for ways to legitimize the burgeoning slave trade. Prior to this, people identified far more with their local communities. However, the frequent use of racial categories didn't really begin until the 18th century. The United States was the first country to employ this practice on an appreciable scale, as it had an incentive in forging a collective national identity among its diverse population of Germans, Anglos, Irish, Scots, Italians, and Poles—each of which were considered a race unto themselves earlier in history. The most expedient method was obviously to emphasize their racial commonality, and proceed to vilify those individuals who sought to retain aspects their ethnocultural identity. This method ultimately proved successful, but it was an arduous process nonetheless. The point is that racial identity was contrived, thereby indicating its hollowness as a marker for group identification. To understand the profound extent by which culture is relevant to our identity, just imagine how much more you have in common with a non-Caucasian compatriot who practices the same culture that you do, compared with a randomly selected Caucasian from a foreign country.

Cosmopolitanism is an impotent ideology precisely because national identity is an enduring sentiment. The most pernicious effect this puerile form of internationalism has is its tendency to undermine radical organizing. The reality is that cosmopolitan social engineers shall forever remain disappointed by the fact that their vision of a vapid global monoculture will never materialize. In the interim, they will succeed only in offending the masses by violating their right to free association and prohibiting them from practicing the culture they identify with.

America was an achievement on its own as being a state ruled by multiple ethnicities. It was a shame those men there had to enslaves Africans and coerce them into slave labour. I see no incentive to preserve "national identity" if the identity of the people in a nation are not indigenous and/or are conforming to foreign culture, even if it is beneficial for political reasons.

DSN wrote:Egalitarian, just to clear this up for me a bit, are you referring to race in the more general sense of black, white, hispanic etc.? Or do you mean individual "races" within the confines of a given country? Would you say that a German is of the same race as a French person? What about an English person and a Pole?

As long as them beautiful Slavic genes don't get watered down too much, I'm happy. I like me some Eastern European girls.

Yes, I am referring to race as to identify Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc. I am comprised of German, British, Irish, and French ancestry and I consider myself wholly European.

Egalitarian wrote:Yes, I am referring to race as to identify Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc. I am comprised of German, British, Irish, and French ancestry and I consider myself wholly European.

Ah right. So what would the solution be if, for example, a person who was only half white identified as German and wanted to live alongside white Germans?

You are essentializing race, Egalitarian. You are also attributing far too much power to the biological components of race (your views are implicitly hereditarian, which is unacceptable considering the thorough refutation of said doctrine within this very thread) without seeming to understand the social constructs they support. Race has always manifested as a fluid concept in history. It has more ideological basis than biological.

The origin of America's decline follows in tandem with the increasing severity of the contradictions of capitalism, not due to some mystical racial degredation. Multiculturalism is indeed an inimical presence in society, but multiculturalism, by definition, applies to culture.

I ask that you provide us with a solid set of arguments supporting the relevance of race as an ideological mechanism, since this is what this "debate" ultimately reduces to. This is a political forum, after all. Why should we concern ourselves with it? Why is it necessary? If you cannot demonstrate to us that race, like culture, is worthy of acceptance, then you have no grounds to stand upon. cogarian888 ventured to argue that the supposed biological limits of "racial" interaction would prove highly significant in a post-revolutionary society; he failed miserably. It is your turn.

Egalitarian wrote:Culture can be temporary; blood is always forever. In this case, a European living in France could conform to German culture as both are European. I'm not saying a non-European couldn't perform the same, I just don't think it is necessary or desirable.

It's completely arbitrary to oppose non-European immigration, and you've provided no reason why we should consider it more objectionable than immigration from other European populations.

Which nations may these be?

I believe that 4thsupporter was simply referring to the fact that the archaic notion of there being ethnically "pure" countries is fictitious. As I stated earlier, every contemporary national group is an ethnic and cultural amalgamation of various diverse populations.

The most multicultural nation I can think of is the USA, and it's going to hell.

The United States is "going to hell" for reasons unrelated to our racial constitution, I assure you.

Capitalism and multiculturalism will be the end of all remnants of homogeneous societies given the social trends nowadays. White populations globally are declining and their counterpart is prospering. The bourgeoisie don't deliberately have to genocide people to exterminate them; they will just blend them out of existence. Cities such as the one where I live in are becoming majority non-White as the wealth disparities increase.

Multiculturalism, for all its faults, has not produced an alarming rate of miscegenation—I already explained why I believe that is. The reason Caucasians are being displaced in certain areas is actually because our rate of reproduction is lower than most immigrant groups. The only solution to this is to have more children, which is irresponsible given our deteriorating economic circumstances, or end mass immigration. (Most of us are critical of immigration as it is, albeit for reasons unrelated to race.)

I see no incentive to preserve "national identity" if the identity of the people in a nation are not indigenous and/or are conforming to foreign culture, even if it is beneficial for political reasons.

National identity isn't something to be 'preserved,' it simply exists. Either we acknowledge that existence, and the relevance it has in the human condition, or pretend that national sentiment is meaningless.

Rev Scare wrote:It is your turn.

I won't attempt it. Being the pacifistic person I am, I would much prefer this arguing not spiral of out proportion. My degree of knowledge in the field of genealogy/biology is severely lacking compared to most people, thus I have no doubt convincing any of you would prove to be an impossible peak to triumph.

My opposition to multiculturalism is rooted in the fact that I and my relatives have been victims to it in the past where it was heavily prominent, in contrast to more "Whiter" areas I have lived in since. Perhaps only a physical treatment of diversity is necessary to convince some of its brutal properties. The same force was required for me to discover the treacherousness of capitalism's disregard for humans and sole regard exclusively surrounding the rate of profit.

Back in my right-winger days, I had a mate who knew a lot on this topic. He would read excerpts from Erectus Walks Amongst Us (I'm sure you're all familiar with this work), discuss their relation to the contemporary world; explain how it was essential to preserving the innate qualities of the human species, etc. What I'm trying to get at was his reasoning behind racialism; flawless vindication and enacting of it. I suppose now with nothing more to say on my behalf, this topic will end as a whole.

I know.

Egalitarian wrote:My opposition to multiculturalism is rooted in the fact that I and my relatives have been victims to it in the past where it was heavily prominent, in contrast to more "Whiter" areas I have lived in since. Perhaps only a physical treatment of diversity is necessary to convince some of its brutal properties.

I too have experienced living as an ethnic minority in the past, so I realize how alienating and unpleasant it can be. However, there are forces influencing race relations today which transcend mere intergroup bias, and significantly contribute to the hostility observed between the races. For example, one method people employ to cope with the Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes capitalism unleashes is to adopt various ethnic rivalry strategies. Since capitalism elevates competitiveness above all other human attributes, it should come as no surprise to find racial groups competing with one another over wealth, social status, and territory. Thus, we should expect instances of this sort of behavior to be mitigated with the ascent of socialism. It would also be remiss not to mention the pathological subcultures currently afflicting many minority communities, which is derived from their lumpenproletarian class background and influences much of their contemptible behavior.

Back in my right-winger days, I had a mate who knew a lot on this topic. He would read excerpts from Erectus Walks Amongst Us (I'm sure you're all familiar with this work), discuss their relation to the contemporary world; explain how it was essential to preserving the innate qualities of the human species, etc.

If your friend was quoting Erectus Walks Amongst Us in a serious manner, it's nonsensical to claim that he "knew a lot" about evolutionary biology, psychology, or anthropology. As it happens, I am familiar with that work and it's so unbelievably absurd that it makes J. Philippe Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective seem reasonable by comparison. First of all, you should be aware that its author, Richard D. Fuerle, does not possess a degree in a field pertinent to the study of race; in fact, the man is little more than an anarcho-capitalist charlatan. Secondly, a cursory glance through the citations he uses in the book will reveal that the hereditarian psychologists (e.g., Rushton, Lynn, Jensen, and Herrnstein) he exclusively relies on to substantiate his thesis have already been countered by Rev Scare and I in this thread. And finally, the book itself was self-published, most likely because even publishers willing to release blatant pseudoscience realized how inane Fuerle's thesis is.

I feel like a complete moron reading what I wrote. This issue is obviously a trivial distraction, and I was so distraught at what I thought was seemingly irrefutable taboo information that I took it to mean much more than it would even if it were true. I can't help but kick myself now. Thanks for replying, guys. Chomsky was dead on.